file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm

No. 99-586

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2000 MT 68N

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

PATRICIA S. HUNT,

Petitioner and Respondent,

and

KENNETH P. GARDNER,

Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Jefferson,

The Honorable Frank M. Davis, Judge presiding.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm (1 of 5)4/5/2007 2:04:45 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Mark P. Yeshe, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana

For Respondent:

John L. Hollow, Attorney at Law, Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 2, 2000 

Decided: March 16, 2000

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm (2 of 5)4/5/2007 2:04:45 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm

1. ¶Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be 

filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be 

reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter 

Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases 

issued by this Court.

2. ¶Appellant, Kenneth Gardner (Gardner) appeals from the decree of dissolution 

entered by the Fifth Judicial District Court. In particular, he appeals from the court's 

distribution of real estate purchased with co-mingled funds. The real estate consists 

of 155 acres and an adjoining five acres with a house. 

3. ¶The court found that although the parties did not perform a wedding ceremony 

until August 1997, they had known each other for years, had co-habited and had a 

relationship which resembled a business venture in many respects. The District 

Court concluded that there was, on balance, equal contribution towards acquisition 

of the 155 acres plus the house and five acres. Accordingly, the court awarded the 

house plus twenty acres to Patricia Hunt (Hunt) and the remaining 140 acres to 

Gardner. 

4. ¶The District Court stated that it was resolving the matter as a dissolution 

proceeding and then found:

Hunt was the principal financial contributor. Gardner's contribution resulted from utilizing 

the tax free exchange procedure in his close relationship with the Seller to effect what 

proved to be a sound investment for both parties. On balance, the Court finds equal 

contributions. There was credible evidence to substantiate Hunt's claim to the house and 

20 acres. While much of this evidence was oral, the Court finds sufficient part 

performance, and other evidence to overcome the statute of frauds. 

1. ¶Gardner contends on appeal that it is apparent that the court relied on principles of 

contract law when it alluded to Gardner's oral promise to Hunt that if the 

relationship went awry, she would have the house and twenty acres. Gardner argues 

that this case presents issues as to property distribution under a dissolution of 

marriage, that contract principles are not relevant, and that his oral promise does not 

comply with the requirements of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, § 40-2-

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm (3 of 5)4/5/2007 2:04:45 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm

604, MCA. 

2. ¶Although Gardner correctly observes that the court referred to contract principles 

relating to oral promises and part performance, the court also takes into 

consideration the factors of source and contribution. These are considerations that 

come into play in distributing marital property in a dissolution proceeding. See § 40-

4-202, MCA. 

3. ¶Given that the court was confronted with real property acquired four to six months 

before the marriage ceremony and maintained through the financial contributions of 

both parties, it is understandable that the court looked to both contract and 

dissolution law. In any event, since the court did initially purport to resolve the 

matter on the basis of dissolution law, we will review the matter in that light. 

4. ¶This Court reviews the findings underlying a division of marital property to 

determine if the findings are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Rock (1993), 257 

Mont. 476, 479-80, 850 P.2d 296, 298. It is not the lack of specific findings which 

constitutes reversible error, but the lack of substantial evidence to support the 

judgment. This Court looks to both the district court's express reasoning and the 

evidence in the record to determine whether ample evidence exists. In re Marriage 

of Hundtoft (1987), 225 Mont. 242, 244, 732 P.2d 401, 402 (citation omitted). 

5. ¶The question presented is whether there is substantial evidence in the record to 

support the District Court's conclusion that there was, "[o]n balance, . . . equal 

contributions." Gardner contends that Hunt has attempted to make the District 

Court's decision something it is not--that is, a determination that Hunt was entitled 

to a certain percentage of the appreciated value. We agree with Gardner that the 

court did not analyze the matter in terms of appreciated value. This is not surprising 

given that, with regard to the 155 acres, the appreciation in value was not due to the 

efforts or contributions of the parties or improvements to the land but the result of 

increased land values in general. What matters however, is not how Hunt has 

characterized the District Court's decision, but what, in fact, the District Court did. 

Although the District Court's findings and conclusions are minimal, it is apparent 

that the District Court was looking at contributions towards the purchase and 

maintenance of the properties, not the post-marital appreciation in value. We find 

that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of essentially equal 

contribution towards purchase. 

6. ¶The record regarding contribution towards acquisition of the properties is very 

confusing. A few points are clear: that the 155 acres were acquired by having 

Gardner make a down payment through a tax-free exchange involving Gardner's 

Helena rental property and with Hunt paying the closing costs. The 155 acres were 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm (4 of 5)4/5/2007 2:04:45 PM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm

initially deeded to Gardner alone. He later signed a quitclaim deed to the two of 

them as joint tenants with right of survivorship in June of 1998. In April of 1997, 

Hunt made the down payment on the purchase of the house and five acres but the 

deed was to both Hunt and Gardner. Hunt made all the payments on the house 

through August of 1997 at which time Gardner started to contribute. Payments on 

the land contract were made from a joint account to which both parties contributed.

7. ¶Although there are disputes as to who contributed the most or exactly how the comingled money was accounted for, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that 

Hunt made significant contributions towards the acquisition and maintenance of the 

160 acres and home and that a distribution of 140 acres to Gardner and 20 acres 

with the house to Hunt was not inequitable. We conclude that the District Court's 

findings are not clearly erroneous. 

8. ¶The judgment is affirmed. 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/99-586%20Opinion.htm (5 of 5)4/5/2007 2:04:45 PM